Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

Nancy is a supplier . . . she sells drugs. She intoxicates people with answers to ALL their searches for the truth they have not been able to find anywhere else. She literally has an answer for everything all wrapped up in one little package. Wow how wonderful . . . good vs. evil (STS/STO), eternal life (reincarnation), all the unanswered questions in history (the anunnaki) , what the future is going to be (pole shift). . . what else could you ask for?

And you know they are not incorrect, or worse, flat out lying, how, exactly?

Oh right, you don't.

Grow the fuck up, george.

I know you don't care about people's feelings. I think they actually believe what they said. O.K. So they might be totally out to lunch but they still believe it. My question is why? They have emotionally bought into Nancy? How can she have such a mesmerizing effect on two people? Beats me but she seems to have the ability to fool a small segment of the population.

You again tried to avoid the key question, george.

How do you know these people are not wrong in their observation or just lying?

The plural of anecdote is not data, george.

You don't get it do you . . . they are probably wrong in their observations or are lying to themselves. That's how Nancy gets followers . . . she appeals to people's emotions. She has discovered the weak underside of many people's fears and longing to belong to something others don't or can't. I will tell you all the secrets so you are now like me . . .

Quoting: George B

I get quite clearly that I asked a direct question and you tried to do the clunk dance to escape it. This question ring any bells, skippy: "How do you know these people are not wrong in their observation or just lying?"

Have you ever seen that question before, skippy? Well, yes or no, have you?

You are getting more and more like your buddy clunk, and I seriously suspect you are not any more worthy of a reply than clunk.

george does not seem to understand that a great many aircraft are capable of flying at contrail producing altitudes. If there all those Bad Things in a contrail they will be trivially easy to find, but apparently george has not worked his way up to first year high school chemistry yet.

I agree with you, enough of the chemtard BS. From now on george can have the topic all to his ignorant lonesome.

yw.

Look, I can get folks getting hoodwinked by the PXtard stuff, because many, maybe most, are not aware of the sheer level of observation going on around the world, not aware of the accuracy with which celestial events are known, and so on, which precludes the PX scenario. They simply don't know.

But the chemtard thing, thats a whole other level of stupid.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1030191

Fair observations. Since neither the zetatards nor the chemtards seem to know much about, well, anything really, they will swallow any bullcrap that passes their way.

A recent thought I had is that there is yet another thingthat separates us from the bunkers. No one so far has gloatedthat the debunker boycott ran Nancy off. It's the kind oflogic the bunkers would claim if it had been the other way around.

This is the first time in almost 2 months since she left that the idea that we had an effect on her departure haseven been mentioned, IIRC.

Quoting: DrPostman

I don't think that we were the only reason she left, but we might have helped her make the decision. We don't gloat, but they sure gloated when they thought zetasquawk was taken down due to lack of government funding.

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

A recent thought I had is that there is yet another thingthat separates us from the bunkers. No one so far has gloatedthat the debunker boycott ran Nancy off. It's the kind oflogic the bunkers would claim if it had been the other way around.

This is the first time in almost 2 months since she left that the idea that we had an effect on her departure haseven been mentioned, IIRC.

I don't think that we were the only reason she left, but we might have helped her make the decision. We don't gloat, but they sure gloated when they thought zetasquawk was taken down due to lack of government funding.

Quoting: KeepingItReal

Maybe their pride is hurt. After all it's been since 2003????and no planet X and no pole shift and all they have is the humiliation that they've been duped by a con artist and false prophet. Yet another new age false religion goes down like the crap down the toilet. Hmmm.

I feel sorry for the ones that are so gullible as to let another think for them., so sad.

George, I said this to McClunk, and I will ask the same of you. Please respect that this is a thread about the pole shift and planet x. We all know where to find you on your thread if we care to discuss chemtrails. I wouldn't go to your thread and take it off topic to discuss the BP oil disaster, because I respect your right to discuss a topic that obviously means a lot to you.

And why does planet x or pole shift mean so much for the debunkers thread? And why do they ignore other forms of cultic indoctrination and illogical belief systems?

We never decided in any democratic way that this thread should include only questions about planet x and pole shift the way that Nancy describes it.

It is in the thread title, if you bothered your lazy butt to read it.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1030191

So the thread title is god's word now, huh? Literal, fundamental truth not to be questioned?

Because this thread was started by debunkers of Nancy Lieder. We started it because we were tired of being censored and banned for daring to point out the lies, inaccuracies and bullshit spewed by Nancy. We started a boycott of her threads a year ago to prove the point that her threads would die if we didn't add to the post count. We were right. Her page counts dropped dramatically once we started this thread and she tried but couldn't ban us for posting here. Less than a year later she left GLP completely, and I think one of the reasons was the debunker boycott and this thread. So out of respect to TLR who started this thread, and the regular debunkers of Nancy Lieder, it would be nice to keep it on topic. There are lots of other topics on this site.

Quoting: KeepingItReal

I know how this thread got started since I've been here all this time.

I also know what's in this thread, including e.g. your personal info about going to Mexico and stuff. A lot of the things actually having been discussed here isn't strictly related to Nancy Lieder or her px/ps stuff. And a lot of stuff that Nancy has been doing isn't really px/ps related either, like e.g. excessive need to control what's posted on a forum on a thread that she thinks she owns because she made the first post.

What's really in this thread is a variety of issues. You can always try to control the issues (like Nancy) but you can't in reality. As long as this is an open for everyone with internet access thread you really can't control posters or their posts.

So the thread title is god's word now, huh? Literal, fundamental truth not to be questioned?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1001905

No, you simply invented that to attempt to make your point.You remain pointless. God? Literal fundamental truth? Get off your religitard bicycle. This is a PX thread.

Because this thread was started by debunkers of Nancy Lieder. We started it because we were tired of being censored and banned for daring to point out the lies, inaccuracies and bullshit spewed by Nancy. We started a boycott of her threads a year ago to prove the point that her threads would die if we didn't add to the post count. We were right. Her page counts dropped dramatically once we started this thread and she tried but couldn't ban us for posting here. Less than a year later she left GLP completely, and I think one of the reasons was the debunker boycott and this thread. So out of respect to TLR who started this thread, and the regular debunkers of Nancy Lieder, it would be nice to keep it on topic. There are lots of other topics on this site.

I know how this thread got started since I've been here all this time.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1001905

On topic and I agree.

I also know what's in this thread, including e.g. your personal info about going to Mexico and stuff. A lot of the things actually having been discussed here isn't strictly related to Nancy Lieder or her px/ps stuff. And a lot of stuff that Nancy has been doing isn't really px/ps related either, like e.g. excessive need to control what's posted on a forum on a thread that she thinks she owns because she made the first post.

What's really in this thread is a variety of issues. You can always try to control the issues (like Nancy) but you can't in reality. As long as this is an open for everyone with internet access thread you really can't control posters or their posts.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1001905

Sure, you can't control what people choose to post, but a thread on any forum is supposed to be about a particular topic, not any random nonsense a random poster chucks in.

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.

Quoting: George B

As far as I remember, I made no such assertion. You're reaching, George.

Just to get some PX in here, did anyone notice how Nancy was able to weasel out of the thread she did on here announcing Venus being out of place because she didn't understand the placement of stereo ahead? Did she ever admit that was Venus or did she just let the thread die?

Yea, after Nancy declared that she goaded Astronut into exposing her error she abandoned the thread.

A recent thought I had is that there is yet another thingthat separates us from the bunkers. No one so far has gloatedthat the debunker boycott ran Nancy off. It's the kind oflogic the bunkers would claim if it had been the other way around.

This is the first time in almost 2 months since she left that the idea that we had an effect on her departure haseven been mentioned, IIRC.

Quoting: DrPostman

HAHAHAHA!!!Well, that wasn't the post I meant, the one I was talking about had "Venus out of place" and maybe something about Mercury being missing in the title. But thanks for showing me this one, that was hilarious! Especially where she thanks "Astronutty" for being goaded into "it", something mysterious that she conveniently didn't mention. Probably because it was more mystery that only her fans could appreciate. Astronut was also on the "Venus out of place thread" and basically, the same thing happened. He proved her wrong, she argued about it for awhile, trying to address different points, but I don't remember the ending exactly. It was probably similar to the above, something like she thanked Astronut for being a paid gov't shill and asked him how he could live with himself.

I do remember in the Venus out of place thread, though, that she was eyeballing the stereo ahead diagram depicting the position of Venus and claiming Venus should be on the other side of the sun whereas anyone else eyeballing it could see that it was exactly where it was supposed to be. So she either just lied to make it her explanation or she's lacking in some very basic cognitive skills. I wonder how her driving record looks? Or if she drives at all? After all, lots of eyeballing skills are necessary when you're driving . . .

I haven't dove into the chemtrail thing, it just sounds too ridiculous, there are other more pressing problems that I know much more about. But I still don't get how knowing about chemtrails is going to solve anything. If TPTB are responsible, then it's a lost cause. If there's no solution, why waste time on it? Is someone trying to prove that TPTB (US gov't or whatever) are really the bad guys? Well, we already know that.

Just to get some PX in here, did anyone notice how Nancy was able to weasel out of the thread she did on here announcing Venus being out of place because she didn't understand the placement of stereo ahead? Did she ever admit that was Venus or did she just let the thread die?

Quoting: Catseye

That was an odd episode. I was following the ning at that time and watched as she taunted Astronut into explaining it all to her. Then she posted on the ning that she had gotten what she wanted out of him, but that he is a government agent/paid debunker, not to be trusted, but that he was right and had corrected her on the issue.

I cannot remember the Moon being 'stopped' in the sky for 2 hours ever.

That's because it didn't happen.

I attribute the two events to the wobble the Zetas have mentioned from Planet X caused magnetic and particle fields. But really why can't other people notice these things?

This is soooo funny; the answer is right in front of their faces yet they don't see it. People like myself don't notice these things because "these things" are not happening! They honestly think they're the only ones who notice even as thousands of amateur astronomers watch the skies? They're even admitting how ridiculous that is to themselves, yet they refuse to wake up!They are there for all to see, so why don't they? Are we so far from knowing about nature that we do not notice these things as a 'modern' world?

It's sadly ironic. They think they're the only enlightened ones and everyone else is just ignorant. It's as if the whole of amateur astronomy doesn't exist to these people. They're so far removed from being astronomically educated that they don't even know how to properly note and measure the position of the moon.

I have an account on the ning that I've not used as I know my first post is going to get me banned. I was going to save it for 2012 so that I can gloat, but the opportunity here is just too rich. I think what I'll do is post a link to an astronomy broadcast where I end up showing that the moon, sun, etc are all where they should be after stating that I'm "looking for evidence that things are out of place." I'm sure Nancy will ban me and take down the post as soon as she sees it, but maybe I can plant a seed of doubt into some of her followers before then.

The posters seem to feel their observations are real . . . I don't see how they can validate them . . .

They feel their observations are real, which is very different from knowing what's normal and being able to show that they are observing something out of the ordinary. They can't validate them because they simply aren't true. Anyone with a minimum of understanding of how the lunar cycle works can however validate that the moon is doing what it always has done. If the moon was behaving strangely, the lunar eclipse at the end of June and the upcoming July 11th solar eclipse could not occur.

Quoting: KeepingItReal

One thing I have noticed is that all the "sun/moon-out-of-place" people don't seem to realize that the sun/moon doesn't move perpendicular to the horizon. They look at the Sun a bit after sunrise and assume in has come straight up from the horizon to where it is. Then they assume that the point of sunrise has changed, radically, from the day before when they saw it right AT the horizon.

There was another thread entitled "the earth has tilted" where people gave their varying accounts of why they believe this. Usually it had to do with the positions of shadows and reflections in new places in their homes and yards. Since the sun and moon charts are still all accurate then the other obvious explanation is that either their structure has settled and moved slightly or the land that it rests on has shifted - we know land moves around a bit.

Quoting: Catseye

No, the simple explanation is that their memory is faulty. They THINK they remember where the sun was on certain dates and that it NEVER shown in certain windows. Truth is, they simply never noticed it before.

Explanation #2 is that they are simply bullshitting on an internet forum.

Just to get some PX in here, did anyone notice how Nancy was able to weasel out of the thread she did on here announcing Venus being out of place because she didn't understand the placement of stereo ahead? Did she ever admit that was Venus or did she just let the thread die?

Yea, after Nancy declared that she goaded Astronut into exposing her error she abandoned the thread.

A recent thought I had is that there is yet another thingthat separates us from the bunkers. No one so far has gloatedthat the debunker boycott ran Nancy off. It's the kind oflogic the bunkers would claim if it had been the other way around.

This is the first time in almost 2 months since she left that the idea that we had an effect on her departure haseven been mentioned, IIRC.

HAHAHAHA!!!Well, that wasn't the post I meant, the one I was talking about had "Venus out of place" and maybe something about Mercury being missing in the title. But thanks for showing me this one, that was hilarious! Especially where she thanks "Astronutty" for being goaded into "it", something mysterious that she conveniently didn't mention. Probably because it was more mystery that only her fans could appreciate. Astronut was also on the "Venus out of place thread" and basically, the same thing happened. He proved her wrong, she argued about it for awhile, trying to address different points, but I don't remember the ending exactly. It was probably similar to the above, something like she thanked Astronut for being a paid gov't shill and asked him how he could live with himself.

I do remember in the Venus out of place thread, though, that she was eyeballing the stereo ahead diagram depicting the position of Venus and claiming Venus should be on the other side of the sun whereas anyone else eyeballing it could see that it was exactly where it was supposed to be. So she either just lied to make it her explanation or she's lacking in some very basic cognitive skills. I wonder how her driving record looks? Or if she drives at all? After all, lots of eyeballing skills are necessary when you're driving . . .

or maybe she's just a passenger . . .

Quoting: Catseye

Nancy's basic claim, now, is that all the images from STEREO,SOHO and such are faked to show the planets in the right places. That covers all the bases for her in one easy swoop.

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.

As far as I remember, I made no such assertion. You're reaching, George.

Quoting: Menow 1031573

the lower one the higher one then another higher aircraft no one will convince me otherwise.In spite of what YOU just wrote!Meaning the chemtrail was sandwiched between two regular contrails. It is highly unlikely there were three different humidity layers within the same column of air. Not impossible but unlikely. Almost every time I have observed what I consider to be chemtrails or persistent contrails I have seen normal contrails being left by aircraft in or near the same altitude and proximity. Quoting: George B

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.

As far as I remember, I made no such assertion. You're reaching, George.

the lower one the higher one then another higher aircraft no one will convince me otherwise.In spite of what YOU just wrote!Meaning the chemtrail was sandwiched between two regular contrails. It is highly unlikely there were three different humidity layers within the same column of air. Not impossible but unlikely. Almost every time I have observed what I consider to be chemtrails or persistent contrails I have seen normal contrails being left by aircraft in or near the same altitude and proximity. Quoting: George B

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.

As far as I remember, I made no such assertion. You're reaching, George.

the lower one the higher one then another higher aircraft no one will convince me otherwise.In spite of what YOU just wrote!Meaning the chemtrail was sandwiched between two regular contrails. It is highly unlikely there were three different humidity layers within the same column of air. Not impossible but unlikely. Almost every time I have observed what I consider to be chemtrails or persistent contrails I have seen normal contrails being left by aircraft in or near the same altitude and proximity. Quoting: George B

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.

As far as I remember, I made no such assertion. You're reaching, George.

the lower one the higher one then another higher aircraft no one will convince me otherwise.In spite of what YOU just wrote!Meaning the chemtrail was sandwiched between two regular contrails. It is highly unlikely there were three different humidity layers within the same column of air. Not impossible but unlikely. Almost every time I have observed what I consider to be chemtrails or persistent contrails I have seen normal contrails being left by aircraft in or near the same altitude and proximity. Quoting: George B

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.

As far as I remember, I made no such assertion. You're reaching, George.

the lower one the higher one then another higher aircraft no one will convince me otherwise.In spite of what YOU just wrote!Meaning the chemtrail was sandwiched between two regular contrails. It is highly unlikely there were three different humidity layers within the same column of air. Not impossible but unlikely. Almost every time I have observed what I consider to be chemtrails or persistent contrails I have seen normal contrails being left by aircraft in or near the same altitude and proximity. Quoting: George B

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.

As far as I remember, I made no such assertion. You're reaching, George.

the lower one the higher one then another higher aircraft no one will convince me otherwise.In spite of what YOU just wrote!Meaning the chemtrail was sandwiched between two regular contrails. It is highly unlikely there were three different humidity layers within the same column of air. Not impossible but unlikely. Almost every time I have observed what I consider to be chemtrails or persistent contrails I have seen normal contrails being left by aircraft in or near the same altitude and proximity. Quoting: George B

One thing Nancy and clunk have in common is using astronomical terms indiscriminately, without making a coherent sentence. To the Planet X layman, the terms probably sound valid, and the clunks probably imagine they are conveying some expertise in the subject by using them. In the thread Dr. Postman linked, Nancy tried using "eccentricity". I got the eerie feeling I was reading clunk again.

I found the thread, BTW. I had searched for it before and couldn't find it. I assumed Nancy deleted it out of shame.

It was pretty demeaning for her, the whole thread. It was obvious at one point she didn't even know how magnitudes are measured - that a decrease in magnitude means increase in brightness, she had it backwards. You'd think she'd want to study up on astronomy so she could better converse with the Zetas . . .

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.

As far as I remember, I made no such assertion. You're reaching, George.

the lower one the higher one then another higher aircraft no one will convince me otherwise.In spite of what YOU just wrote!Meaning the chemtrail was sandwiched between two regular contrails. It is highly unlikely there were three different humidity layers within the same column of air. Not impossible but unlikely. Almost every time I have observed what I consider to be chemtrails or persistent contrails I have seen normal contrails being left by aircraft in or near the same altitude and proximity. Quoting: George B

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.

As far as I remember, I made no such assertion. You're reaching, George.

the lower one the higher one then another higher aircraft no one will convince me otherwise.In spite of what YOU just wrote!Meaning the chemtrail was sandwiched between two regular contrails. It is highly unlikely there were three different humidity layers within the same column of air. Not impossible but unlikely. Almost every time I have observed what I consider to be chemtrails or persistent contrails I have seen normal contrails being left by aircraft in or near the same altitude and proximity. Quoting: George B

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.

As far as I remember, I made no such assertion. You're reaching, George.

the lower one the higher one then another higher aircraft no one will convince me otherwise.In spite of what YOU just wrote!Meaning the chemtrail was sandwiched between two regular contrails. It is highly unlikely there were three different humidity layers within the same column of air. Not impossible but unlikely. Almost every time I have observed what I consider to be chemtrails or persistent contrails I have seen normal contrails being left by aircraft in or near the same altitude and proximity. Quoting: George B

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.

As far as I remember, I made no such assertion. You're reaching, George.

the lower one the higher one then another higher aircraft no one will convince me otherwise.In spite of what YOU just wrote!Meaning the chemtrail was sandwiched between two regular contrails. It is highly unlikely there were three different humidity layers within the same column of air. Not impossible but unlikely. Almost every time I have observed what I consider to be chemtrails or persistent contrails I have seen normal contrails being left by aircraft in or near the same altitude and proximity. Quoting: George B